Thank
you for the opportunity to respond to Darrell Smith and Virginia Kubler
concerning my article in the September/October issue which you
provocatively entitled “The PR Problem.”

Let me set the record straight, since Mr. Smith
chose to make my identity and motivation an issue instead of bothering
“to take the time to dispute each detail of each of Miller's
statements.” Had the editor included the complete biography I provided,
my association with Southwall Techologies, Solis, V-Kool, and the WFC
would have been clear to all just as I intended it to be.

Despite
Mr. Smith's and Ms. Kubler's remarkable inability to admit that they too
are motivated by self-interest, my commenting in Window Film is no more
self-serving, and a great deal less defensive, than their attempt to
impugn my competence and integrity instead of addressing the points I
raised.

Regarding my
association with the WFC, Mr. Smith has his facts wrong. I worked for the
WFC from February 1998 to December 1999, not for a much shorter time as he
implies. I was hired, not by Mr. Smith, but by Robert Martin. I did not
report, nor send my invoices to Mr. Smith, but to Graeme Fairlie and then
to Robert Martin. In fact, I have met Darrell Smith only once in my life,
at which time we were simply introduced, having no substantive
conversation. My services were not renewed by the WFC due to an ignorance
of, and lack of interest in, public relations on the part of the Committee
(sound familiar?), despite Mr. Martin's advocating that the WFC do more,
not less, PR.

For
all of their insistence on making me the issue, press coverage of window
film is not what it should be. Case in point, the Florida Hotel &
Motel Journal is writing about security in its April/May issue and energy
conservation in its June/July issue and yet the editor has received window
film information only from me on behalf of V-Kool. She has not been
contacted by any other film manufacturer or distributor. You would think
for the millions of dollars Ms. Kulber says are spent annually promoting
window film that all publications writing on issues even remotely relevant
to window film would be regularly contacted and provided information by
major players in the film industry.

While
asserting that I am not “qualified” to present a critical view
regarding PR, Mr. Smith and Ms. Kubler want you to believe that the window
film industry is better off fearful of dissenting views, inward looking,
and the fiefdom of self-appointed insiders. It is precisely that kind of
thinking that is behind the “PR Problem” and about which people in
this business should find, using Mr. Smith's word—“offensive.”